Thought this was worth a post here as it might stir up some discussion. I've just returned from a hugely successful run at the Edinburgh Fringe with my fifth show, Fatal Distraction. I'm about to start touring it around the country so if you get a chance to come see it do please say hello.

Anyway I wrote a piece for The Huffington Post about who reviews reviewers, attempting to raise debate about reviewing magic. Here it is, hope it inspires some thought and consideration from you all.

Who Reviews The Reviewers

An open letter to reviewers and editors at the Edinburgh Fringe.

As the Edinburgh Fringe heads into its final week, it gives performers some time to reflect on the weeks that have passed - and one thing none of us can stop talking about is reviews. After some good advice from Tim Minchin a few years back, I make a huge effort to not read any reviews. I see stars go up on posters, and I'm flattered, and all is well and lovely. Well. All was well and lovely. I accidentally read a review from a respected print publication, not a blog or an audience review but a potentially influential review, by a professional reviewer. I was furious, but not because it was a bad review. Oh no, it wasn't. Everyone at the end of my show gets asked to keep the secrets of the show secret - not to give away the plot - the tricks or what happens in the show. The same is asked of reviewers. So as I'm reading the review, I realise it's not a review. At no point is there any comment on my show, on the reviewers thoughts on the show, there is no review. Instead it's a fairly graphic synopsis of everything that happens in the show including exact details of the story line, the major plot twist, and what happens in tricks. I was fuming. Not least because if some people know what happens in tricks, then the tricks simply will not work. Hence why I am at pains to make sure they are not given away. This reviewer in essence has (spoiler alert) told you Bruce Willis is dead in the Sixth Sense, then talked about the rest of what happens in the film, without ever actually commenting on it.

As performers we put a hell of a lot into our shows, for me its 18 months of writing, rehearsing, developing, creating brand new and unique tricks, methods and such. The very least we expect is that a reviewer takes care in reviewing us, and puts the effort in, in the same way we put the effort in for our shows. When someone doesn't do this, it's galling. When they don't review the show but just give away the secrets or the content it is even worse. Comedians have a hard time with reviewers giving away jokes, but for magicians it's careless, because in many instances it can mean a trick will no longer work or have that wow / surprise factor that it needs to hit home with an audience. All that can be ruined by one lazy reviewer. There is a huge difference between giving away a flavour of the show, and giving away exactly what happens in the show.

I realise there is a problem with reviewing magic shows in particular, unlike the world of comedy, there is not as much around to be able to easily judge as to whether something is good, original, new or unique. This is because there hasn't been a huge amount of magic around recently, but now with over 40 magic shows at the Fringe and more magic appearing on our screens is it time reviewers knew a bit more about the craft of tricking people? I know in my show this year it's 100% new material (plus 1 old joke) with most of the tricks created by me and having never been seen before. There is no guess work involved, there is 100% fact and 100% trickery, be it mind reading, quasi mind reading, fake mind reading or magic. I have a narrative, the first time I've used one and it, at least to me, sets my show apart from other magic shows which are a collection of tricks (and there is nothing at all wrong with that style of show.) A reviewer as a rule however doesn't know this, and why should they? They are reviewing the show from a blank canvas. Do they like it; do they think it's good? Problem lies in the different standards across the board of reviewers. If you get someone into review a show that likes magic then the review will be more favourable than a reviewer who isn't such a big fan. I've seen great reviews for magicians by the same author, then for the same publication mediocre reviews for magicians who in my opinion are putting on a better show by a different author and I can only put it down to the fact that the latter isn't a huge fan of magic shows.

Then you have reviewers who think they know how the tricks are done, and make sure they mention this as part of the review, as I've seen for magic shows by friends this year. Here's a secret. Everyone in the audience thinks they know how it's done. That doesn't mean that is how the trick is done. We are not asking you to just believe in magic, instead we are asking you to enjoy the entertainment factor of a show. If you want to try piece together the jigsaw of how a trick is done, go ahead. However don't just assume you know how everything is done and therefore think it's a bad show because of that. Unless of course you see a sloppy magician who gives everything away and you clearly see the trick. It's about thinking carefully, seeing past the tricks and seeing what the performer is trying to achieve, magic is and always will be more than just tricks. The tricks are the bones of it, but it's everything else which makes it watchable. We are not here as magicians to make you believe we are really performing the impossible, we are here to entertain.

Having spoken to some reviewers recently I am aware there is a trend for editors to request their reviewers explain what happens in the show, thus ruining punchlines, tricks or indeed whole plot points. Audiences like surprises, audiences are not stupid, audiences don't have to be spoonfed exactly what is in a show, audiences are clever enough to make their own minds up and reviews should be based on opinions with a flavour of the show.

No one reviews reviewers, there is no comeback for any disgruntled performer who feels unfairly treated by a review because the facts might not be right, because it is just a synopsis of the show, because it's not a review. Where is the right to reply for a performer who gets reviewed by someone who is grumpy, tired, seeing their eighth show of the day in a hot room and would much rather just be having something to eat then churning out another few hundred words on something they aren't going to enjoy, despite the hundreds of people round them having a wonderful time. I realise reviewers have it tough and on the whole do a great job, but every now and again something slips through the net and that something can have a huge affect on someones performance, show or even career. Perhaps it's time reviewers remember how important reviews are to the performers as well as the audience, and open up a dialogue to ensure that there is a right to reply, not from bitter performers and comics who think differently to the reviewer, but when something is obviously at odds between the performance audiences are loving and what the reviewer has written. I remember, earlier this year, seeing a two star review for a comedy show I saw at the Royal Albert Hall. This was a show that got three spontaneous standing ovations. 4999 people loved and adored that show, one person didn't. That one person wrote a review, and rather than taking into account the opinion of the populous they decided to say it was rubbish, when it quite obviously wasn't.

The simple fact is, reviews are vital to performers and audiences alike and all any of us ask is that they are fair.

There was an interesting point made on BBC Radio 4's Front Row yesterday evening. Mark Lawson and Mark Kermode were discussing film critics and Kermode's opinion was that no one listens to them. Well, not in the way that you might think. He used some of the blockbuster movies such as Pearl Harbour and Pirates of the Caribbean as examples of movies that people went to see despite being panned by critics. He noted that YouGov had run a survey in which he himself had come out as the most trusted critic in Britain - but only three per cent of people trusted him.

Kermode also noted on the programme that someone had come up to him and said that when he'd panned a particular movie they had felt compelled to go and watch it.

In my family it is an in-joke that if a film is "critically-acclaimed" then it's probably rubbish.

This should be the job of the editor. I review movies for a website and whenever my reviews are being edited it is always brought up if I've inadvertently slipped in a plot spoiler. In all the years I've been writing there has only been one instance where I wanted to keep a spoiler in as part of the review, so we made a big warning banner to place above the review stating that it contained discussion of an important plot point.

Any review (be it film, TV, live show) will be subjective. It may not be positive, but the editor should always make sure that it is factual and won't potentially spoil a reader's enjoyment of the performance if they haven't already seen it.

Have you had any responses from other-than-performers yet?I'd be particularly interested to hear any replies from the Post or the reviewer in question.

You're dead right about the importance of reviews though. Sure a lot of people couldn't care less, but I've seen a great business put under by a widely red, badly written review. The moron writing it had a great meal, sent compliments to the chef, and then wrote a review where not a single positive remark was made without a back-handed dig following it. Even though it was a glowing review - it was written so badly that unless you paid close attention, it looked like a terrible place.

That new restaurant which had been seeing a steady upward trend in business and popularity saw an instant drop in business the same day.The lunch trade dropped off, the evening trade was a trickle and neither recovered again.

I never had a good view of reviewers, but that incident made me realise just how serious it can be when one decides to go beyond their remit.

A wonderful post. I hope it vented your spleen. If your show is as stylish and as well put together as your writing you have no problems. We can only hope that the old adage, "Any publicity is good publicity" is true. Think of the song "There's No Business Like Show Business 'Yesterday they told you would not go far. That night you open and there you are. Next day on your dressing room they hang a star. Let's go on with the show''

Great postI agree with everything you saidHere in Israel we also have the same problem. They take reviwers who are experts on another subject, and tell them "hey, while you write a review on that singer, do one on this magic show" and reviewers don't know nothing about magic shows and usally get bored becouse they are not that in to these stuff. They do it to save money and its bad.I'm over 40 years in the buisness, and I'm doing well, but its the young magician I watch that work so hard, that I feel sorry for

Also applies for reviews about Magic Tricks too. Most reviewers never communicate with the creator to discuss the effect prior to publication - it just goes out there, job done I guess. Most reviewers haven't actually performed the effect to a real audience either so can't assess how it actually plays - so why not talk to the creator again? Are the reviewers hobbyists, semi pros of full time pros? Who knows. This again would perhaps sway their review. For example, a full time pro will often look for how workable an effect is in terms of reset, angles, portability etc but a hobbyist may not be bothered about these points at all - just another quick trick to show to the mates and then pop in the drawer! Hence the reviews could be totally different. We all want balanced and fair reviews.